Talk:Archaeoraptor/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Archaeoraptor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of June 10, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Yes, except the lead.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Some statements need citations (see 'fact' tags).
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Yes
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Noo problem
 * 5. Article stability? Stable
 * 6. Images?: Ok

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Ruslik (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Some comments:

1) The lead should be expanded to at least two paragraphs

2) Some statements need citations. I marked them with tags.

3) At the end of the first paragraph in 'The Dinosaur Museum Journal' there is an unformated ref (a web link). Please, format it using tags.
 * Done it myself. Ruslik (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

4) The first ref in 'References' lacks journal name.

5) The book 'Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight' of Czerkases should be added to the reflist and cited where necessary.

6) In the last section I read "This action prevented the tainted name "Archaeoraptor" from entering the paleornithological literature by attaching it to the part of the chimeric specimen which was unlikely to be classified under Aves, rather than the portion which was later shown to represent a true bird species.". Sorry, I don't understand this sentence.

7) If possible, include an image of the fossils.

Ruslik (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the review, Ruslik, and your copyedits. I will work today to resolve these issues. On point #3, the web site does not verify the material in the paragraph. I believe it was meant as a link to Czerkas' traveling exhibit site, as an example of Czerkas' reconstructions. Firsfron of Ronchester  13:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's the best image of the Archaeoraptor fossil I could find, from here, should it be added to the article (with fair use rationale, of course)? FunkMonk (talk) 09:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is a good image. It can be added. Ruslik (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Some observations:

I meant two real and long paragraphs. I did not mean the rudimentary paragraph made of two short sentences. Taking into account that the article was expanded, three paragraphs may be a good idea.



:3) Ref.7 lacks any information about punlisher and/or journal. It is not possible to find it.

Ruslik (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I sure appreciate you taking another look, Ruslik. I'm used to the old-style GA format, and didn't notice your new comments here until just a few minutes ago, so please do not think you were ignored. The page just simply wasn't on my watchlist (I don't have 'automatically add pages I edit to my watchlist' selected because I'd have too many pages watchlisted)
 * Citations have been provided for all of your fact tags. We appreciate the opportunity to have addressed those. I did take point #1 seriously, although it was just three short sentences. More can certainly be added, and we have worked in the past 24 hours to expand the lead more. I will work to clarify the sentence in point #6 today. Firsfron of Ronchester  18:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

GA review&mdash;passed
I think now the reached GA level, and I am going to pass it. Ruslik (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We appreciate the comments, requests for clarification, and copyedits. Thanks for your thorough review, Ruslik. Firsfron of Ronchester  04:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)